VeriSign sues ICANN

Washington Post: Suit Challenges Powers of Key Internet Authority (TechNews.com) VeriSign has sued ICANN over SiteFinder, and — apparently — also over delays in IDNs and WLS. Essentially, it seems like the new registry services issue has just be…

Washington Post: Suit Challenges Powers of Key Internet Authority (TechNews.com)VeriSign has sued ICANN over SiteFinder, and — apparently — also over delays in IDNs and WLS. Essentially, it seems like the new registry services issue has just been moved from the GNSO to the court system.Discussion at ICANNwatch.

Three Remarkably Bad Ideas

First, as an all-time favorite, most corkscrews. The classical waiter’s knife with corkscrew is about the best thing you can get (and you can get it much cheaper than Google’s first hit for “sommelier knife”!), but that does not keep suppliers fro…

Media_httplogdoesnote_iywrf

First, as an all-time favorite, most corkscrews. The classical waiter’s knife with corkscrew is about the best thing you can get (and you can get it much cheaper than Google’s first hit for “sommelier knife”!), but that does not keep suppliers from flooding the marketplace with useless alternatives that usually tear the cork apart, or leave cork rests in the wine. The one on the photograph is kept for educational purposes only.

Media_httplogdoesnote_jwryg

Second, a recently-discovered stupidity, Samsonite’s Malaga travel bag. This bag comes with a small padlock (the same lock and key is used for all Samsonite products, it seems, but then again, this lock does not even try to look like it offers serious protection), a more robust combination lock, and a back zipper which can’t be locked, and gives easy access to the bag’s main compartment.

Media_httplogdoesnote_cwdeb

Third, the keyboard in my trusty Dell laptop. A critical part of the mechanism is a relatively thin piece of tin that must be bent in the right way — and, of course, is distorted over time, with all kinds of not so funny effects on my typing habits. The distortion effect is particularly strong with the shift and control keys, but can fortunately be fixed with a little bit of tinkering. The stupid assumption, though, that tin doesn’t exhibit unelastic distortions, seems to have been commonplace in Dell hardware design for quite some time. I still remember some “workstations” which provided comfortable access to the PCI bus, but required re-bending some critical tin parts after the third exchange of a faulty PCI card.

Aggregator Reloaded

The ICANN blog aggregator has been rebuilt from scratch. Besides being much simpler and more efficient than the old code, the new code also leads to a shorter delay until updates about which the aggregator is notified by a weblogs.com-style ping a…

The ICANN blog aggregator has been rebuilt from scratch. Besides being much simpler and more efficient than the old code, the new code also leads to a shorter delay until updates about which the aggregator is notified by a weblogs.com-style ping are actually incorporated. The most visible changes are probably the re-direct to the script that generates the index page dynamically, and the changed layout. Any comments welcome. Remarks about the layout are only accepted, though, when accompanied by a new style sheet.

Proxy registration providers

I’m currently looking at “proxy registration providers”, i.e., at firms that offer domain name registrations where WHOIS records don’t identify the actual registrant, but the proxy service. I have, so far, found the following providers (quite a fe…

I’m currently looking at “proxy registration providers”, i.e., at firms that offer domain name registrations where WHOIS records don’t identify the actual registrant, but the proxy service. I have, so far, found the following providers (quite a few thanks to hints contained in the ISPCP’s submission to Task Force 2):

Am I missing any known services of this kind? Are there any “war stories” about the conditions under which information about registrants is actually disclosed by those providers that collect it? Comments welcome.

“Whereas no comments were received.”

ICANN has finally — on 20 February — posted the preliminary report from its 15 January meeting. On the proposed bylaw change (number of constituency representatives on the GNSO council), the preliminary report notes that ICANN had solicited comm…

ICANN has finally — on 20 February — posted the preliminary report from its 15 January meeting. On the proposed bylaw change (number of constituency representatives on the GNSO council), the preliminary report notes that ICANN had solicited comments, but that none were received. The bylaw change was then adopted as proposed.Unfortunately, the assertion that there were no comments is simply not true. I sent e-mail to John Jeffrey on January 12 pointing out that the terms for council members proposed in the bylaw amendment were inconsistent with the concept of having staggered terms on the council; I know that at least one further comment on this was sent to Jeffrey.

Transparency? Rumors.

So we’re back to anonymous rumors at ICANNwatch when it comes to learning about board decisions. That’s the kind of scenario that preliminary reports from board meetings are supposed to prevent. According to the bylaws, these reports are due five …

So we’re back to anonymous rumors at ICANNwatch when it comes to learning about board decisions. That’s the kind of scenario that preliminary reports from board meetings are supposed to prevent. According to the bylaws, these reports are due five business days after a board meeting; in the past, they were often available on the day of a board phone conference, or — when late — on the next day.Today, we’re still waiting for the preliminary report from January 15 — for instance, was the bylaw change that was up for comment before that meeting actuallly adopted?And I don’t even dare to hope that we see a preliminary report from Wednesday’s telephone conference before Rome.PS: I’d love to be told that the preliminary reports are hidden in some unknown corner of the ICANN web site and that I’m just too stupid to find them. But I don’t believe that’s the case.

A registry on new registry services.

If you look at the Summary of Constituency Statements on Future new Services or Actions by gTLD Registries on the GNSO web site, you’ll notice that the gTLD registry constituency — presumably the constituency most directly impacted by the ongoing…

If you look at the Summary of Constituency Statements on Future new Services or Actions by gTLD Registries on the GNSO web site, you’ll notice that the gTLD registry constituency — presumably the constituency most directly impacted by the ongoing PDP — is the only GNSO constituency that has not submitted a constituency statement in this process. From a statement on this process submitted to the GNSO by Neulevel, we now learn that the reason for the gTLD registry constituency’s silence is lack of consensus.Neulevel’s submission includes a detailed description of a possible review process. Although I haven’t digested the details of this proposal, yet, I’d recommend a look — as far as I know, this is the first time that one of the gTLD registries speaks on the record about detailed ideas for a “registry services process.”